Israel's Nukes

One of the more interesting bits to come out of this from Andrew via another reader.
"There is a very simple reason why we have to pretend that Israel does not possess nuclear weapons- the Non Proliferation Treaty. Under the treaty and US law, a non-signatory to the treaty (such as Israel) who acquires nuclear weapons is prohibited from receiving any foreign aid or military aid . . ."

Source:
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as amended by the Symington Amendment of 1976 and the Glenn Amendment of 1977 prohibit US military assistance to countries that acquire or transfer nuclear reprocessing technology outside of international nonproliferation regimes.

But Israel isn't Iran's rival — Iran is Israel's. Can Andrew name any acts of unprovoked bellicosity Israel has committed against Iran?
.
Talk about parsing . . .
.
Didn't Israel take out an Iraqi nuclear reactor in an air strike some time in the not-to-distant past - with OUR blessing? Seem to remember that was some sort of "message" to others.
.
When you send "messages", sometimes you send them to others, with the clear understanding who is supposed to hear it.
.
Just exactly which cheap drugs does Pollack think we are all taking?

There is a very simple reason why we have to pretend that Israel does not possess nuclear weapons- the Non Proliferation Treaty.
.
All of this "winking" and "nodding" on the part of our government regarding Israel and its nuclear program is giving me a headache.
.
That program has got to be one of the worst-kept secrets on the planet.
.
Look at Pakistan and India - our recent deals with them regarding nuclear technology have served as a stellar example to others and have made the region safer - NOT!
.
Why would ANYONE believe a word we say on this?

I think I'd rather be in the situation we are now, as in, the nation's leader that has talked about wiping another nation off the map and is openly racist NOT having nuclear weapons.

Come on, Joe, you're not hinting that Iran has a right to have nukes, are you? Kind of seems like you are.
-
Oh, and by the way, I wonder what the United States would have done if faced with a terrorist element on our border that:
-
A: Had kidnapped and murdered US soldiers before, only surrendering their bodies after long and tortured negotiations
-
B: Kidnapped more troops
-
C: Started launching rockets into cities along the border to complain that the US hadn't surrendered a particular territory to them, even though we had
-
"Disproportionate bellicosity"? Your grandiose prose fails you again.

Joe:
.
Is there any information at all, (reality-based information!) that attempts to make an assessment of just what might happen economically should these two come to blows?
.
The NNPT interpretation is very interesting...

apollyon07,
.
One more example of where our past policy in that area of the world comes back to "bite us in the arse".
.
We set what we think are minor fires for one supposedly benign reason, then have to come back later and start others to stop the flames from the first one WE set.
.
It's been going on for years over there.

Oh, by the way, if Iran has a right to have nukes because Israel does...wouldn't that mean NK has a similar privilege? I think we're forgetting exactly which states are in the business of kidnapping US citizens for trial in kangaroo courts.
-
Seriously, the bad guys are the bad guys. Talk with them if you must, but don't legitimize their mangled logic.

Joe, quit being so anti-semitic.

Is there any information at all, (reality-based information!) that attempts to make an assessment of just what might happen economically should these two come to blows?
.
53_3,
.
This is just my opinion, mind you, but use your imagination.
.
Disrupted oil supplies, major conflict, fragile world economy. Put those together and stir briskly.

Any debate of who should and who should not have nuclear weapons is over the cliff to begin with. Nobody should have them. Nada. And the U.S. and Russia should begin a process to insure that, and then begin to deal with their own massive stockpiles.

afguy, I agree with you partially, but there are some situations where it just simply was not predictable. For example, was helping the Afghanis fight off the Soviets (by far our biggest, and arguably the world's, greatest threat at the time) in the 80s a bad thing to do at that moment? To say it was a bad thing to do because of what may or may not have happened later is kind of like saying to a football team that ends up losing 7-8 (and scored first) that they should have gone for two after scoring because they ended up losing.
.
And 53_3, could you provide the link for that NNPT interpretation? Sounds interesting indeed.

formerlyjames, the thing is that nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent. Does anyone really think the US and Soviets would not have gone to (real) war had they not both had nukes?

James,
-
Actually, there's a pretty good case for all the really big strong countries to have nukes. Major power wars virtually disappeared after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Prior to that, Major power vs. Major power wars were almost a continuous state of affairs. It was only after the cost of war finally hit guaranteed annihilation that people stopped fighting each other.
-
It's somewhat accurate to compare the U.S./Soviet bi-polar world of the late twentieth century to the Britain/France bi-polar world of the dark ages. Or the Europe/Middle East world of the crusades. Those were times of literally unending warfare. Nukes are bad news yes, but there's a pretty solid argument to be made for their presence keeping any two countries that possess them from fighting each other.

apollyon, your nuance is right given the fractious nature of the Middle East. Unfortunately, Iran's current situation can be most directly attributed to our meddling. Tragic.

And the U.S. and Russia should begin a process to insure that, and then begin to deal with their own massive stockpiles.
.
formerlyjames,
.
They do (or did). Program started the last couple of years I was active duty. We both destroy missiles in a verifiable manner and then we buy up their surplus nuclear material (supposedly so it wouldn't fall into the wrong hands.)
.
I know that our nuclear industry complained so that program MAY not be as active and prolific as it once was. Seems they thought that buying the USSR's material was undercutting the profits of our own.
.
And since Bush has had his fingers in the pie in the intervening time...who knows?

I think we're forgetting exactly which states are in the business of kidnapping US citizens for trial in kangaroo courts
.
Yoshi
I'm not sure I recognize the incident you're referring to. Was it this one?
.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE53L4V520090422?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Yoshi, on Iran, I'm assuming you're referring to our installation of the Shah which eventually led to the Ayatollah, and I agree. However, it seems like we could've done more to keep the Shah in power, because while he was a bad guy, it was pretty obvious what kind of leader Iran would end up with if he was deposed. Surprise!

Joe-
.
Thank you so much. Nothing brightens my day more than seeing unbelievably poor logic.
.
In order to justify why Iran wants nuclear weapons, you cite as examples of "acts of unprovoked bellicosity Israel has committed against Iran" (1) "Israel's constant threats of military action against Iran's nuclear program"; and (2) "the disproportionate bellicosity Israel visited upon Iran's Hizballah surrogate in 2006".
.
So, for (1), your logic is that Iran needs nuclear weapons to combat Israel's threats against its nuclear weapons? Brilliant! Of course, Iran could escape those threats by not having nuclear weapons, but that's another matter.
.
And, as for (2), I don't think you know what "unprovoked" means, do you?
.
Again, thanks for cheering me up with your "logic." I haven't laughed that hard in a while.

Sean Coursey,
.
No, but we reverted to almost a constant state of "proxy" warfare at various places.
.
How much of our current ME problem started out with a "Cold War" theme to it? I wonder if the rationale for the fighting hasn't just mutated over time.

I recognize the deterrent effect to an extent. That extent stops when there are sectarian crazies hoping to meet virgins in another world.
.
afguy, I know of the nonproliferation treaties and efforts, but they have just scratched the surface. People think of nuclear capability only in terms of long range rockets and missles, and that is what the new players to the game aspire for. But the U.S. and Russian capabilities run from those missles to artillery shells.

Also, as you should know, it's not just "Likudniks in Israel" who are preparing for war against Iran. It's a broad swath of the population, including Labor figures such as Peres and Barak.
.
Considering they're under no illusion about the pain of war and they're willing to put their sons and daughters in harm's way, I think they recognize the threat of a nuclear Iran.

Keep on trying for equivalency, PD. It'll get you, and the US, nowhere.
-
apollyon:
-
Gee, I don't know. That's an interesting dilemma to consider. Maybe so.

However, it seems like we could've done more to keep the Shah in power, because while he was a bad guy, it was pretty obvious what kind of leader Iran would end up with if he was deposed. Surprise!
.
apollyon07,
.
The Shah was a walking "human rights violation". I'm pretty sure we had opportunities to affect his behavior and gain some good will in that country but, at the time, we were worried about the Soviet Union. We needed the bases he let us have.
.
His illness caught us by surprise but, by that time, we just weren't very popular within that country.
.
I'm afraid we were going to "bite it" in Inran no matter what because of our support for him.

But the U.S. and Russian capabilities run from those missles to artillery shells.
.
formerlyjames,
.
And smaller than that, I'm sure. Technology doesn't stand still.